The revenue authorities are bound by the orders of the civil courts, and quasi-judicial authorities must provide cogent, clear, and succinct reasons in their decisions.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard through Video Conferencing.

3. This present miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is being challenging the order dated 26.06.2020 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Chambal Division, Morena, order dated 24.09.2016 passed by the S.D.O. (Revenue), Gohad and order dated 13.04.2016 passed by the Tahsildar, Gohad, whereby revision and appeal filed by the petitioners has been dismissed and the petitioners' entries made in the revenue record is directed to be changed in the name of the State Govt. and is directed to be recorded.

4. It is alleged that with respect to the properties in question, earlier the civil suit was filed by the petitioners against the respondent/State which was registered as Civil Suit No. which was decided vide judgment and decree dated 20.06.2014 in favour of the petitioners partly decreed. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred which was registered as Civil Appeal No. which was finally decided on 22.09.2014 and the findings arrived by the trial Court and the judgment and decree which was partly allowed in favour of petitioners has been completely allowed by the Appellate Court setting aside the finding which was not given in favour of the petitioners by the learned trial court. It is alleged that complaint was made against the petitioners by the respondent herein with respect to the fact that without any proper settlement of the land in question in favour of petitioners by playing fraud they have got their names entered into the revenue record and have shown owner of the property in question. The application was entertained by learned Tahsildar and notices were issued to the petitioners. The petitioners marked his presence before the Tahsildar and has brought to his notice by the judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as appellate Court dated 20.06.2014 in Civil Suit No. 16,@2014 b-nh and 22.09.2014 Civil Appeal No.20/2014 ,-v-nh- wherein the petitioners have been declared as Bhumiswami and title holder of possession of the property in question. The learned Tahsildar has overlooked both the judgments and decrees passed by the civil Courts and on his own motion has passed the order dated 13.04.2016 holding that the petitioners could not show any valid order of settlement in their favour, in such circumstances, the order dated 03.01.2004 in Case No. The aforesaid order does not find place in the revenue record. It is argued that by playing fraud the names have been mutated in the revenue record. It is submitted that the learned Tahsildar has not disputed the judgment and decree passed by the civil Courts in favour of the petitioners. Despite of the same overlooking the findings given by the learned civil courts with respect to ownership of the properties of the petitioners, the order has been passed and directions have been issued to change the entries in the revenue record. The order passed by the Tahsildar dated 13.04.2016 was put to challenge by the petitioners by filing an appeal before the S.D.O. (Revenue) and the order passed by the learned S.D.O. (Revenue). He has also not disputed the fact with respect to judgment and decree passed by both the civil Courts but despite of the same has affirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar without there-being any discussion on the aspect that whether the land which was part of the civil suit wherein the State Govt. was also party is the same land for which the complaint has been made. There is no discussion with respect to the fact that whether any fraud was played by the petitioners before learned trial Courts and whether the orders and judgment and decree passed